Holding Summer born boy back a year

[Oopla]

DS is a July baby and started nursery the sept after he turned 3. I'm thinking of asking his nursery teachers if it would be possible for him to stay another year in preschool.
He has settled ok in nursery but doesn't particularly look forward to going (is a real homebody) and its taking him a whole to get used to the social side of things. In my heart I don't think he's emotionally ready for full days and more structure. Not keen on him being the smallest boy in the class either.

It's a standard state nursery attached to a primary, not sure if they will just laugh me out the room! Can you think of the pros and cons of this idea or any thoughts about it? Many thanks.

that sounds sensible Oopla,

This isn't scientific, but I must have networked with over a hundred parents who, like me, really really wanted to give their child an extra year.

From those I've touched base with later I'd say only about 5% say that the passage of time has proved that it really was a big deal (either positively like me or negatively for children who weren't given the option).

The other 95% all talked about their children adjusting and catching up.

Nothing you've said about your child is suggesting he's in that 5%.

Of course, for us in the 5%, it remains as big a deal as ever! If you don't feel strongly enough to genuinely, seriously consider moving to Scotland (I would actually have done this) then your child probably isn't in the 5% :)

DS2 is a late July baby so he'll be starting school in August 2015 (starts ante-preschool place this August when he turns 3yo).

I have a little concern about him being young starting in the nursery/school system but that's only because my eldest is an April born and he is one of the eldest in his class. I'm comparing the situation with what I already know! Which is pointless, because no two children are the same and DS2 may get on fine, even with being the youngest of his peers when starting nursery in six months' time.

Look at it the other way - why should the 1 September kids not go to school early?

There HAS to be a cut-off and as kids get older, the developmental difference diminishes year by year till puberty when the girls ALWAYS outstrip the boys except in Maths until year 12
and then they even up
ready for the hormone fest that is Univeristy

speaking as somebody who went through Secondary school in the 'wrong' year, I'd not wish it on my worst enemy.

Lost
I'm April, but because I'm bright the private selective school were willing to take me into the year above.
SHIT move.
The details would out me and them, but it UTTERLY convinced me that ALL children should go to school with those of their age
BUT SEN / thick kids will need support
AND bright kids will need stretching sideways
well, no shit sherlock
its obvious really
the academic stuff is linked to learning curves (which all even out by year 14)
but the critical social stuff is cohort linked - and MUST NOT be ignored

It is Lostonthemoors ...your child doesn't have to attend school but if you choose to send him he doesn't have to start school until he is 5.

Ooopla if it is a nursery attached to a state primary you will need to speak to the head not the nursery teacher.

In terms of putting him down a year at school, this is not a parental right at all and is something that is only granted in extreme (very extreme) cases.

Depends on your LEA - here children are out of year group all the time, they just started a year later in Reception.

My LEA will only consider this for children with extreme SEN difficulties and even then it is unlikely

We are one form entry, and have four out of year group atm - it's always been so for the twenty+ years I have been teaching.

My late-August born DS1 started in Reception full time in Sept aged 4 and 2 weeks. A third of his class turned 5 before Xmas, and (particularly the girls) are a way ahead of him in reading and writing as you would expect. That said, he's not really aware of it. The teachers are happy with his progress and socially he's doing fine. The reality was much less stressful than I thought

They don't skip Y6 - they stay permanently out of year group and move up to Y7 with their peers.

In 20 years I've only had 1 out of year pupil Feenie

and they arrived from a different LEA out of year.

In my LEA they either skip Y5 or Y7 or Y11

I currently have a child assessed as developmentally around 15-18 months

Dd2 is six months older than one of her best friends with Aug birthday, he couldn't read at begining of yrR, now in yr1 she is on turquoise (fine for nearly 6), he is at least two levels above her. It doesn't always work out badly.

DD was born 6 weeks early, if she had been born on her due date, she would have started school a year later - as it is, she's the youngest in her class.

There really is no flexibility in England, if you keep them back till Easter, they miss 2 terms of schooling. However teachers are very aware of the summer-born issue, and should take that into account.

Sorry if that's not clear, I mean the teachers do know and differentiate between the children, and your DS should get extra support.

gosh, you are responding to Feenie as if she was making it up. she isn't. Her LEA just quietly gets on with it and it works, just as it has worked for me and changed my family's life for ever.

We've gone so far backwards in the last couple of years since Labour asked for a report on making year-deferment for summer borns a universal right.

TalkinPeace2. I sympathise with your distress about being placed in the year above. But your argument that this means summer borns should start reception at 5 makes no sense. If you suffered by being with children who were at a more advanced developmental stage than you, then you of all people should have some inkling of what those of us with immature summer borns go through.

and Tiggy tape,
"Somebody has to be forced to be the youngest" is, I can only hope, not something you would have dared say to my face, and not something you would say if you knew my story. Show some basic compassion. These are children like yours we are talking about.

Feenie may remember my story but all I can say is that in the autumn of the year DS2 turned 3 we were advised by our LEA to apply for a statement because of DS2's language delays and suspected ASD (do you know how hard people fight to get these?) and send him to reception in his default year. But because we instead put the correct interventions in place working in partnership with the school in the nursery setting, the next big meeting we - when DS2 was 4.10 and due to start school at 5.0 - lasted five minutes. We opened the meeting. We asked the SENCO how things were going. She said she felt he was now ready for the demands of reception. We all paused and looked at our watches. The head said "that was a good judgment, waiting until now". Then we all went about our business.

Then DS2 started reception in touching distance (just!) of his new peers, despite being older than them by a whole ten days, found a best friend, and, crucially, engaged in those everyday jostling crude interactions that boys had and so slowly developed the skills he had missed out on.

sorry talkinpeace - 4 not 5.

The saddest thing among many sad things is that when we finally hauled the man responsible for cutting off the possibility of summer-born deferment on to mumsnet, he admitted that he had never intended there to be no exceptions.....

And can you imagine if, at that meeting when DS2 was 4.10, the SENCO had said "he's ready for the demands of reception now - so we'll place him in Year 1".

When the rule-changed was first threatened, the nursery nurse was so disturbed she said "we wouldn't do that to him - we just wouldn't".

I think those who insist on rigidly lack belief in the potential of certain children with delays to overcome them.